New Draconian Anti-Collector Law Takes Effect in Minnesota

[BillJones]

The new Minnesota law that in effect ends the hobby in that state has taken effect. This is an example of big government totally run amok. This effect does not just effect Minnesota based dealers and those out of state dealers who come to Minnesota shows. It effects collectors because if you deal with out of state dealer that requires that dealer to register in the state. In other words, if you are a Minnesota coin collector your options for adding coins to your collection are now severely limited because very few out of state dealers will want to do business with you. It will be just too expensive.

 

Here is a link to a Numismatic News article that explains what the chilling effects of this foolish piece of legislation.

 

New Minnesota Law

[mtnstyne]

Wow!

 

"This threshold is also met if a Minnesota consumer makes a sale or purchase with a non-Minnesota dealer at a coin show located outside of Minnesota."

 

I really don't see how this is remotely legal. How can Minnesota dictate how a business acts on a coin sale made in another state? All you FUN dealers better be checking your customers drivers licenses or you may be breaking the law when making a sale....

 

Glad I live in a fairly free state still.

 

If you sell a $5,000 coin to a resident of Minnesota you have to pay a $25,000 surety bond...as well as all the paperwork and background checks.

 

 

[BillJones]

Wow!

 

"This threshold is also met if a Minnesota consumer makes a sale or purchase with a non-Minnesota dealer at a coin show located outside of Minnesota."

 

I really don't see how this is remotely legal. How can Minnesota dictate how a business acts on a coin sale made in another state? All you FUN dealers better be checking your customers drivers licenses or you may be breaking the law when making a sale....

 

Glad I live in a fairly free state still.

 

If you sell a $5,000 coin to a resident of Minnesota you have to pay a $25,000 surety bond...as well as all the paperwork and background checks.

 

 

I can see the signs at the FUN and ANA shows:

 

"We are sorry, but we cannot sell coins to residents of Minnesota."

 

What else can you do if you are a small to medium sized dealer?

[wdrob]

 

What else can you do if you are a small to medium sized dealer?

 

Change your product from coins to marijuana. Nearly half the states of this country have legalized it for medical purposes, some for recreational use, the FDA is working with the DEA to stop prosecuting and enforcing on the federal level.

 

Profit margin is much, much higher.... however not nearly as rich in historical value so I doubt there will be many educational stories you can tell when posting a picture of a tasty bud from your collection. .

 

 

 

 

[AHFreak]

This is soooo sick.

[Coindude]

Very sad moment indeed.

[coinman_23885]

Wow!

 

"This threshold is also met if a Minnesota consumer makes a sale or purchase with a non-Minnesota dealer at a coin show located outside of Minnesota."

 

I really don't see how this is remotely legal. How can Minnesota dictate how a business acts on a coin sale made in another state? All you FUN dealers better be checking your customers drivers licenses or you may be breaking the law when making a sale....

 

Glad I live in a fairly free state still.

 

If you sell a $5,000 coin to a resident of Minnesota you have to pay a $25,000 surety bond...as well as all the paperwork and background checks.

 

 

I can see the signs at the FUN and ANA shows:

 

"We are sorry, but we cannot sell coins to residents of Minnesota."

 

What else can you do if you are a small to medium sized dealer?

 

No, this would be unreasonable on the part of the dealers. The law only applies to transactions executed within the State of Minnesota, mail/wire orders involving Minnesota residents, and perhaps Minnesota dealers. The law would have no operation on an out of state dealer who conducts an out of state transaction with a Minnesota resident and Minnesota courts would lack in personam jurisdiction over the dealer. The Supreme Court of the United States has been clear, since its International Shoe v. Washington decision, that in order to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be certain minimum contacts with that state. This is why the mail order and internet transactions would be subject to the long arm statutes while purely out of state transactions would not. If the Minnesota statute had the ability and meaning that you and the others have attributed to it, it would be a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment per International Shoe .

[RWB]

It would be helpful if a competent lawyer could be hired to write these articles dealing with law and the hobby/business. The errors in the article simply spread misinformation and make it more difficult for reasonable responses to be prepared.

 

Thanks coinman_23885 for jumping in with a voice of reason.

 

PS:State legislatures are well known for these kinds of asleep-at-the-switch laws. It's nothing new and this is mild compared to some the stuff from 50 or 100 years ago.

[Hard Times]

Two points:

 

All Mineesotie dealers are welcome in Tejas

 

Now we know why the Vikings have sucked my whole life.

 

Best, HT

 

PS, And to think I have liberal tendancies

[BillJones]

Thanks coinman_23885 for jumping in with a voice of reason.

 

It is only "a voice of reason" after there has been a court case which established "reason." That is the flaw when the political extremes from both sides establish a statute that must be litigated. That involves court costs, and the government has infinite resources while the people have only so much money to invest. And if "the people" win, they are still out the court costs. The government doesn't care, but it can tax more or print more money to cover the expense.

 

This is why I called the so-called "progressives," "regressives." Their idea of justice trashes democracy and places the power in the hands of the few who either have a great deal of money or the power of the state and/or political influence behind them.

[Raisethis2]

I blame Michelle Bachmann.

[BillJones]

I blame Michelle Bachmann.

 

After hearing about "the voice of reason" we now hear the voice of insanity.

 

Ms. Bachmann's political career can be interpreted in a number of ways, but support for a piece of "spoon" legislation like this is not one of them.

[brg5658]

Several comments as a collector who resides in Minnesota:

 

1) The law is written in such a cryptic and odd way that the enforcement is almost laughably impossible.

 

2) There are enough "loopholes" in the law that any dealer not residing physically in Minnesota, can almost certainly claim the "occasional transaction" exemption (Step 2, part 6 listed here.

 

3) Auction companies like Heritage are exempt from worrying about this law made clear in the Step 2, parts 4 and 5 exemptions.

 

4) The definition of "bullion" in the law is completely idiotic. BUT, do not forget that this law has no bearing on the sale of numismatic items of copper, copper-nickel, brass, etc. Luckily for me, that is the majority of my collecting area.

 

5) I would give this law (as written) a maximum of 2 years before some litigation clarifies all of the ambiguity and over-reaching idiocy currently a part of the law.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

It is only "a voice of reason" after there has been a court case which established "reason." That is the flaw when the political extremes from both sides establish a statute that must be litigated. That involves court costs, and the government has infinite resources while the people have only so much money to invest.

 

The personal jurisdiction case law is well established for cases like this, and unlike the majority of legal questions where there are shades of gray, this one seems pretty clear cut in my opinion. And with regards to an adjudication, there will only be an adjudication if it is applied to those out of state dealers transacting in another state or if one of them preemptively files a law suit (perhaps a class action suit) seeking injunctive relief. I think this is wasteful and unnecessary, and in fact, there may never be an adjudication on this statute as applied to those dealers ever because as a matter of practice, it would be hard for the State of Minnesota to even prove that the transactions executed and completed completely outside of state lines even existed in the first place. Perhaps those records could be subject to subpoena power (if any action is brought by the State of Minnesota), however, there would have to be existing litigation. In short, there are practical issues with them even enforcing the statute, so adjudication may be unnecessary.

 

[coinman_23885]

I blame Michelle Bachmann.

 

She is a member of Congress (part of the federal legislature). This was a statute enacted by the Minnesota State Legislature. Bachmann doesn't have a vote in the state legislature.

[Nutmeg Coin]

People can usually find ways around onerous laws. As Machiavelli pointed out, it may be easy to make laws, but it is hard to maintain the people's trust in intrusive or unpopular ones. http://mises.org/daily/1819

[brg5658]

I blame Michelle Bachmann.

 

After hearing about "the voice of reason" we now hear the voice of insanity.

 

Ms. Bachmann's political career can be interpreted in a number of ways, but support for a piece of "spoon" legislation like this is not one of them.

 

PS -- Michelle Bachmann and Al Franken (the two people that have been continually posted as straw man arguments as to the sanity of Minnesota lawmakers) are FEDERAL representative and senator, respectively. They have nothing to do with the state laws.

 

I voted for Al Franken, a Harvard educated political scientist (who also happened to have a long career in comedy). The man is more qualified for the US Senator post than many other Senators, so let's not get too wild here. Now, as for Michelle Bachmann, she's just bat-$#it crazy, and I can't make any excuses for her...but she is a US Representative barely elected by a small uber-conservative and uber-rich north suburb of Minneapolis, not a state legislator.

 

And, just to put things in perspective here a bit -- while this one law has large over-reaching effects/impact on the coin dealing industry in Minnesota, let's not get carried away. Minnesota has a top 3 education system for young people (elementary through HS), marriage equality, and high marks for far more important things than our friendliness to coin sales. Even if it suddenly impacted some of my coin purchases, I think a bigger picture perspective may be called for.

 

One would think the way the Numismatic News article were written that the "sky was falling" -- maybe this was a guest writer from the Enquirer?

[BillJones]

Several comments as a collector who resides in Minnesota:

 

1) The law is written in such a cryptic and odd way that the enforcement is almost laughably impossible.

 

2) There are enough "loopholes" in the law that any dealer not residing physically in Minnesota, can almost certainly claim the "occasional transaction" exemption (Step 2, part 6 listed here.

 

3) Auction companies like Heritage are exempt from worrying about this law made clear in the Step 2, parts 4 and 5 exemptions.

 

4) The definition of "bullion" in the law is completely idiotic. BUT, do not forget that this law has no bearing on the sale of numismatic items of copper, copper-nickel, brass, etc. Luckily for me, that is the majority of my collecting area.

 

5) I would give this law (as written) a maximum of 2 years before some litigation clarifies all of the ambiguity and over-reaching idiocy currently a part of the law.

 

 

Having read your posts on this subject, I can tell that you are a member of Minnesota Farm and Labor Party.

 

I'll an Elephant Party member, but I'd never make excuses for the excesses for bad laws that are supported buy my party. I'll call them out on it and not back down. I'm not a politician with a financial horse in the race, so I'm call it like I see it regardless of the opinions of other party members.

 

Now there is a bit of "Harry Truman plain speaking" for you.

[brg5658]

Several comments as a collector who resides in Minnesota:

 

1) The law is written in such a cryptic and odd way that the enforcement is almost laughably impossible.

 

2) There are enough "loopholes" in the law that any dealer not residing physically in Minnesota, can almost certainly claim the "occasional transaction" exemption (Step 2, part 6 listed here.

 

3) Auction companies like Heritage are exempt from worrying about this law made clear in the Step 2, parts 4 and 5 exemptions.

 

4) The definition of "bullion" in the law is completely idiotic. BUT, do not forget that this law has no bearing on the sale of numismatic items of copper, copper-nickel, brass, etc. Luckily for me, that is the majority of my collecting area.

 

5) I would give this law (as written) a maximum of 2 years before some litigation clarifies all of the ambiguity and over-reaching idiocy currently a part of the law.

 

 

Having read your posts on this subject, I can tell that you are a member of Minnesota Farm and Labor Party.

 

I'll an Elephant Party member, but I'd never make excuses for the excesses for bad laws that are supported buy my party. I'll call them out on it and not back down. I'm not a politician with a financial horse in the race, so I'm call it like I see it regardless of the opinions of other party members.

 

Now there is a bit of "Harry Truman plain speaking" for you.

 

Bill, I am actually non-denominational. But, I am pro-social programs, I am fine paying higher taxes for a solid support base for people living in my state, for better education, and for a higher quality of life. And, no I don't take benefit from those programs, as a top 5% earner in the state. Call me altruistic.

 

While this bill is (IMO) over-reaching, and quite silly -- there are far more important things in life for me to worry about than coin collecting. For me, it is a hobby -- I am not a dealer, and I am not going to lose any sleep over this legislation. I also don't see any way this legislation will be upheld, so it's sort of like all of the idiotic (and unenforceable laws) on the books in a myriad of other states.

 

I also find the political debate interesting though. The Elephants want no government unless to invoke their "values" on the people at large based on marriage definition, a woman's choice to do with her body what she wants, etc. The Donkey's try (and often fail) to enact laws that protect the small guy. Regardless of the broad-stroke painting of the issues, the devil is in the details. And, for this particular issue -- I simply think that this piece of legislation is being blown way out of proportion.

 

Thats all.

[WoodenJefferson]

Let's not forget the Minneapolis-St. Paul area was at one time a hot bed for boiler room tactics that bilked millions of dollars from people across America. Over kill with this bill none the less.

[coinman_23885]

Abortion, education, and gay marriage are far from being related to the overreaching coin bill that was enacted.

[e1cnr]

Some of the biggest fraud/boilerroom/scam operations for 'rare' coins have been out of MN, FL and NY. They recently have/had a big dealer in MPLS selling fake PCGS slabs with Chinese fakes and/or sandwich jobs.

 

If they feel this is the best way to protect the collector/investor, then so be it (it will be a work in progress).

[jom]

And, just to put things in perspective here a bit -- while this one law has large over-reaching effects/impact on the coin dealing industry in Minnesota, let's not get carried away. Minnesota has a top 3 education system for young people (elementary through HS), marriage equality, and high marks for far more important things than our friendliness to coin sales. Even if it suddenly impacted some of my coin purchases, I think a bigger picture perspective may be called for.

 

Yeah...but that doesn't explain the Vikings!

 

jom

[RWB]

It is only "a voice of reason" after there has been a court case which established "reason."

 

The comment is reasonable in that he presented some useful, factual material - not emotional diatribes.